It's my 'opinion' that science, scientists, and science supporters should be open to things that are possible. A creator/designer of some sort, at some level, is possible.

And so is the flying spagetti monster. So what?

Science should only be concerned with things that can be tested, not with what is "possible".

Quote

Ya know, for all any of us know, we and our universe could be an experiment in a test tube in a lab somewhere. Far fetched? Yeah, to most people. Impossible? No. Any evidence of it? No. Could there ever be any evidence of it? Who knows?

How's the light in your cardboard pyramid?

Quote

Regarding ID being religious: Maybe a new term should be created to describe the ID-ists and or creationists who you guys and gals have such a problem with.

Maybe it should, why don't you go ask the posters at uncommondescent about it?

Quote

Something to separate them from all the benign ID or creation believers. How about this for the extreme ones: PMPRZWWTDTW (Politically Minded Pushy Religious Zealots Who Want To Dominate The World)?

I can't speak for everybody here, but to my mind the main "problem" with the ID crowd is their desire to teach their bullshit in schools.

Splitting them instead of lumping them might make religion bashers look more reasonable and it might not piss off the people who believe in creation and/or design, or just think they're a possibility, but don't want to be lumped with the more extreme religious zealots.

People can believe what they want, but if they try and teach their beliefs in school then many many rational people will have a problem with that.

Do you?

"Science should only be concerned with things that can be tested, not with what is "possible"."

How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested? Do all scientific tests produce results that were predicted, or predictable? Are no scientific tests, that are or were ever done, simply exploratory in nature? Are there never any surprises in science? Do all scientists agree on what is possible, and impossible? Do all scientists agree on what is testable, or not testable? Has science already invented every possible test for every possible thing in the universe or on Earth?

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested?

How can you know unless you try and test it? If you can't think of a way to test your idea then you need to reconsider if it's scientific in nature or not. I'd say. If the answer was known in advance you'd have no need to attempt to test it would you? Duh. Perhaps this will help

Quote

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Clear? Testing = prediction = consequence. Rinse and repeat.

Quote

Do all scientific tests produce results that were predicted, or predictable?

If you always got the result you predicted, why do the test at all?

Quote

Are no scientific tests, that are or were ever done, simply exploratory in nature?

Why are you asking me? I thought you claimed to know something about this?

Quote

Are there never any surprises in science?

All the time. The only place there are no surprises is religion. Static, unchanging. Boring.

Quote

Do all scientists agree on what is possible, and impossible?

Of course not.

Quote

Has science already invented every possible test for every possible thing in the universe or on Earth?

It's amazing that you think you can ask questions when you have ignored the majority of questions addressed to you.

If you'd like to have an actual conversation about this sort of thing then I would suggest you re-register under a new user name and start over without the attitude.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

How can science always know what can be "tested" or what is possible before it's tested?

Well, Fuckface (hey, new nickname for you, but your stupidity deserves abuse), In order to know that, science has to test it. Right with you so far.

ID/Creationism has been around for a veeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrryyyyyy long time, and yet it's still untestable. Wishing it could be doesn't mean it will. It just means the greedy bastards using it to pulp the cash out of credulous morons are getting fuller pockets while said morons are cradling a fairytale.

Not much to do about that, except making sure these crackpots stay out of the school system.

So, who has to test the ID/creation "hypothesis"? Mainstream scientists, or the few rags who proposed it in the first place?

ID/Creationism is fine, takes many to make a world, but leave it the fuck out of schools or be prepared to get attcked and insulted, which is all you deserve!

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Kris is one of those confused people who thinks his ignorance is somehow significant in terms of evidence. What he fails to appreciate is that his ignorance IS significant, just not in the way he thinks it is.

This part of Kris' schtick can be summed up as "I don't know, therefore know one knows and furthermore no one can know because I am too thick to find out for myself". Look out for it. It's common trope amongst the truly intellectually lazy and dishonest. Especially the ones with a really massive ego and sense of undeserved entitlement like Kris.

I respectfully request a grant in the amount of $50,000 for the proposed Do Science research program outlined below.

I am open-minded, I do good science.

I won't say I do or don't believe, but am open to the possibility that, at some level, or in some form, some sort of It is. (Though it may all be a just a dream in a dream in a dream in a dream. Far-fetched? perhaps, but not impossible.)

Could there be any evidence? Who knows; there will always be questions that can't be answered completely.

Rest assured that I will be very silent and will not propose any suggestions, speculations, inferences, hypotheses, or theories; or claim that it is well established, or proven, or provable, or an alternative, or a fact, or parsimonious; or assert or imply in any way that it is a done deal until and unless it can be shown to be a done deal without speculation, inferences, and assumptions.

I will only say I'm working on figuring out how and I don't have all the answers yet, and may never.

If science is doing so well, in the context of what I said, why is this site here, and why do you (and others) put so much effort into bitching about religion? And, if science is doing so well, why do way more people believe religious myths than science?

The answers are similar for both your questions: because teaching and learning science isn't the same thing as practicing science and the institution of science itself. In other words, the reason this site exists is to combat misinformation regarding the teaching and learning of science. Similarly, the reason that more people believe religious myths than engage in science is because it's a heck of a lot easier believing in myths, superstitions, and the promise of an afterlife than actually learning and doing science.

ETA:

Science is hard, "Kris". It requires actual work. It requires collaboration, research, analysis, trial and error, and (in many ways most importantly) a humbleness and willingness to be wrong and disappointed. In contrast, believing a myth is ridiculously easy and fulfilling.

It takes real strength and integrity to try and discover how the world actually is and face that, rather than pretending that the world is something you imagine it might be.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..? Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you? It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague. Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please? Be specific. More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?

The MadPanda, FCD

Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those fancy schmancy, high falootin' Latin terms for what's going on in your sentence below? Hey, I know, it's argumentum bullshitum!

"Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?"

You assume that since I said there are a lot of claims in science that I don't find convincing, I must think that all science is useless and should be dispensed with, and that I must think there's a better way of figuring out the world. That's quite a leap you mistakenly took there.

Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper. You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass. I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper. You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass. I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper. You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass. I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

I prefer to reserve my talents in such matters for truly deserving targets, rather than the insipid waste of potential who keeps pulling on a shoe and dramatically announcing to all and sundry that it fits his foot perfectly.

This was a real-life application of the BF&I Rule, which accepts that after fifteen minutes of unsuccessful lockpicking even the most accomplished master thief will be overheard saying "oh, let's just break the @#$%er thing down". Kind of like using reason and logic on Biggy.

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?

Just curious...

Predictions? Could be indicative..? Show me a String.

There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you? It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.

Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?

I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague. Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please? Be specific. More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?

The MadPanda, FCD

Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those fancy schmancy, high falootin' Latin terms for what's going on in your sentence below? Hey, I know, it's argumentum bullshitum!

"Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?"

You assume that since I said there are a lot of claims in science that I don't find convincing, I must think that all science is useless and should be dispensed with, and that I must think there's a better way of figuring out the world. That's quite a leap you mistakenly took there.

Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper. You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.

"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.

You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass. I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.

Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension. That's one of the biggest problems you all have. You misinterpret much of what I say and you read things into what I've said that I never actually said or implied. Hmm, why do you do that? Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

--------------The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension. That's one of the biggest problems you all have. You misinterpret much of what I say and you read things into what I've said that I never actually said or implied. Hmm, why do you do that? Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

Or maybe because you are very, very careful never to actually say anything that could be taken as a position one way or another.

Only thing worse than a hypocrite is a chicken who won't take a stand.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

Just because somebody is not your enemy does not automatically mean you want them to be your friend.

If that person, for example, was a right dick then perhaps you'd not want to hang around with them.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.

Just because somebody is not your enemy does not automatically mean you want them to be your friend.

If that person, for example, was a right dick then perhaps you'd not want to hang around with them.

Quote

If that person, for example, was a right dick then perhaps you'd not want to hang around with them.

Is there a slight hint aimed at Kris there?

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Dude, you got the Dog Pizzle title now. I'm sorry, but nothing you say at this point can be taken seriously. LOL!

Quote

Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension.

(sigh) If you really meant "claims" and not "bodies of theories", then you weren't talking about science there, D P. Yet another example that you aren't actually a scientist.

See...that you don't happen to find some claims made by some people who happen to be scientists in their day (or night) job isn't even worth an announcement in the Virgin Island Daily News. Why? Because claims are nie unto opinions and they don't carry any actual scientific weight. They don't. Period.

Unless you have a beef with an actual element of science, you're just pissing in the wind.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis